“We gave you three days to recant but you insist on not returning to Islam"

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

Nice analogy, Haplo.

In a nutshell, religion and faith in a supreme being is in the mind of the beholder. Many people need it to stave off the depression and hopelessness that would be caused by the answer to the age old questions...
"Is this all there is?"
"Do we just cease to exist when we die?"

From scientific studies we know that there is more out there just waiting to be discovered. Much more.
The answer to question number two is far more elusive and won't be answered until we experience the death of these physical biological robots we run around in.

Scientifically speaking, we do not cease to exist when we die. We are, if you break it down, more energy than we are matter. Energy - at least as we understand it - cannot be created or destroyed. It merely changes form. (See the Law of Conservation of Energy). Thus we will exist, though science can not say whether our consciousness will do so - simply because science has not been able to truly understand what consciousness IS.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Scientifically speaking, we do not cease to exist when we die. We are, if you break it down, more energy than we are matter. Energy - at least as we understand it - cannot be created or destroyed. It merely changes form. (See the Law of Conservation of Energy).

That's also true of a fire, the light from a lamp, or any other form of energy, or matter. The energy from the fire goes somewere else, as a different form of energy. That doesn't mean it's still a fire when it does so.

Thus we will exist, though science can not say whether our consciousness will do so - simply because science has not been able to truly understand what consciousness IS.

That is absolutely true, and that is the nature of all things scientific. On the other hand religious sources have claimed since the beginning of religious writing to know absolutely that there is a soul that is separate from the body, all without any evidence other than the claim that it is so.

It's easy to dismiss science for not having a particular answer, but claiming the existence of something because science can't disprove it borders on deception in the sleight-of-hand category. Science can't disprove the existence of a separate concsiousness, or soul. Science can't disprove the existence of God. Science also can't disprove the existence of Bertrand Russel's Cosmic Teapot, or, as I like to say, the existence of little blue bug-eyed men from Atlantis living in the oceans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

To summarize: Science has shown that energy changes form, but does not cease to exist. Science has also show that energy and matter are interchangeable, so that combining oxygen and certain materiels and applying an external energy source can cause combustion. Science has further shown that the matter consumed in the combustion takes on a different form of matter or energy.

What science has not shown is that any given part of the matter or energy continues on in the same state, or at least enough to support the claim that the matter or energy will continue to exist in the same state for all eternity. No, there is no proof that the consciousness or soul cannot continue on after death, but there is no reason at all to believe it will other than the desire for it to be so. Do people believe this because religious writings claim that God has revealed this to certain people and they wrote it down, or was it written down because people wanted to believe it?

I don't claim to have an answer, but those who do claim to have an answer don't believe in the existence of certain concepts because those concepts can't be disproven. They use the fact that they can't be disproven to support their beliefs. That is about as unscientific as one can get, not to mention unreasonable and irrational. And, to me anyway, a little dishonest.

[Wolferz]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

That's also true of a fire, the light from a lamp, or any other form of energy, or matter. The energy from the fire goes somewere else, as a different form of energy. That doesn't mean it's still a fire when it does so.


That is absolutely true, and that is the nature of all things scientific. On the other hand religious sources have claimed since the beginning of religious writing to know absolutely that there is a soul that is separate from the body, all without any evidence other than the claim that it is so.

It's easy to dismiss science for not having a particular answer, but claiming the existence of something because science can't disprove it borders on deception in the sleight-of-hand category. Science can't disprove the existence of a separate concsiousness, or soul. Science can't disprove the existence of God. Science also can't disprove the existence of Bertrand Russel's Cosmic Teapot, or, as I like to say, the existence of little blue bug-eyed men from Atlantis living in the oceans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

To summarize: Science has shown that energy changes form, but does not cease to exist. Science has also show that energy and matter are interchangeable, so that combining oxygen and certain materiels and applying an external energy source can cause combustion. Science has further shown that the matter consumed in the combustion takes on a different form of matter or energy.

What science has not shown is that any given part of the matter or energy continues on in the same state, or at least enough to support the claim that the matter or energy will continue to exist in the same state for all eternity. No, there is no proof that the consciousness or soul cannot continue on after death, but there is no reason at all to believe it will other than the desire for it to be so. Do people believe this because religious writings claim that God has revealed this to certain people and they wrote it down, or was it written down because people wanted to believe it?

I don't claim to have an answer, but those who do claim to have an answer don't believe in the existence of certain concepts because those concepts can't be disproven. They use the fact that they can't be disproven to support their beliefs. That is about as unscientific as one can get, not to mention unreasonable and irrational. And, to me anyway, a little dishonest.

"Praise the Lord and pass the collection plate" kind of sums up the dishonesty part. God has no need for money but his self proclaimed servants can't get along without it. They'll passionately tell people anything to boost the tithes. Most churches even put up a tote board as a means to make the parishioners feel guilty and give more. Look at Jim and Tammy Faye Baker for the definition of religious con artists.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

"Praise the Lord and pass the collection plate" kind of sums up the dishonesty part.

Actually I was talking about honesty and dishonesty in arguments. Not the same thing at all.

God has no need for money but his self proclaimed servants can't get along without it.

That's true of anyone. We can't survive without some kind of income, whether it be cash, credit or chickens. I can see the point of someone dedicated to "Serving the Lord" having that as his only work and being paid out of the generosity of the faithful. Jesus himself didn't have a job during his ministry, but relied on the help of his followers, including some women with money to spare. Does this make him a scammer? I don't see it that way, if the story is true at all.

They'll passionately tell people anything to boost the tithes.

Some will, yes, but certainly not all. In the past I was aquainted with several ministers who lived on what their followers gave, but were content to live minimally, using only what they needed and redistributing the rest. Billy Graham was well known for living modestly, setting up charitable organizations to use the rest to help people who needed it. As with anything in life, the bad ones make the headlines and people forget all the good ones. I've known some good ones in my time.

Most churches even put up a tote board as a means to make the parishioners feel guilty and give more.

"Most"? I've never seen that. I'm sure it happens, but no church I attended back when ever did anything like that.

Look at Jim and Tammy Faye Baker for the definition of religious con artists.

Yes, but again they made the headlines because of their bad ways. You don't read about the thousands who truly believe what they're doing.